Caught.net has known of one Pro se litigant that went before Judge Hurst several years ago that asserted, despite losing, they had received a fair hearing. They felt they were treated respectfully and their arguments were given due consideration. This is what the public expects and demands in our courts and it is far too rare!
On 1-12-98 in the matter of LaRocque v Livermore Judge Hurst had an Ex parte conversation with Att. Dodd regarding the hearing and scheduling of a motion submitted Mr. Livermore, a Pro Se litigant. This is a classic example of the mistreatment and bias Pro Se litigants experience in RI courts.
Judge Hurst upheld several counts of an indictment despite glaring problems with the complainant's statements and the record, refuses motions to remove an attorney who the accused had good reason to believe had sold him out and refuses to remove a damaging brief by the same attorney despite objections and motions of the accused. Was Edmond Brown's case justice or the standard "take whatever we throw at you and shut up" procedures being followed in our courts?
Ron Bianco wrote to the Providence Journal that Judge Hurst has ruled that, "Journal reporters must testify in the trial of a local public official. Hurst said that their testimony was necessary for the public good in helping to uncover illegal operations in government." Mr. Bianco asserts the public's good is best served by not forcing journalists to testify.
AND GOT IT! Read the Saif Abdulkarim Story